Starting on Saturday the 16th April for 8 days, a Banner vehicle will be travelling around England reminding everyone to celebrate St George’s Day.

It will finish on the 24th April at the Stonecross parade being held in West Bromwich. Expected at the parade will be 15,000++ showing their love of community, family, St George and England. (They will parade for 2 miles).

It is about time that the British government gave the people of England another Bank Holiday as England has the lowest number of public holidays in the whole of the EU at only 8 days and the second lowest in the world

Making St George’s day a bank holiday makes commercial sense as research has shown that consumers also enjoy spending money on holiday days.

Public houses, businesses and councils should respond to this demand by launching their own events to mark England’s day of celebration.

‘We believe that promoting St Georges day as a national holiday and a family day will help create a positive sense of national identity, social unity and integrate our communities. St Georges Day should be a bank holiday, as it will instill a sense of belonging, stability and acceptance of community spirited values.’

He continued

‘Our campaign challenges anyone to tell us what is wrong with celebrating English accomplishments as a nation’.

If the people of England were given a day off for St George’s Day, we would most surely see a marked rise in celebrations across England. It would be safe to say that people in England certainly welcome the idea that St George’s day should be made a bank holiday

The Government needs to understand that the people of England love the country they live in – and aren’t afraid to show it!

The Cabinet Office refused to spend what they claimed was £9 million on an information booklet for the Police Commissioner Elections which was recommended by the Electoral Commission, but instead it is set to waste £9 million on a booklet of propaganda for the European Union about which the Electoral Commission has stated as:- “We don’t think the government should have done it, but it’s not illegal,” and that:- “Electoral Commission recommended that the Government should conduct no taxpayer funded advertising”.

Robin Tilbrook, the Chairman of the English Democrats said that:- “In September 2015 I wrote to ask the Government to do a Mayoral style booklet for the Police and Crime Commissioner Elections and wrote that:

“the Government has neglected to properly consider and apply the Electoral Commission’s conclusions in their report dated March 2013 that there must be a Mayoral style booklet delivered to each elector. Please could you let me know what you are proposing to do to sort out this mess?”

On the 29th February 2016 David O’Gorman of the Cabinet Office’s Elections Division replied to me stating that despite:-

“the Electoral Commission’s recommendation to provide printed booklets of candidate election addresses there are no plans to provide the booklets to all eligible households in May 2016, given it is estimated that to do so would cost up to £9m.”

Robin Tilbrook continued:- “So it is now crystal clear that this is a government which refused to spend £9 million on a Mayoral style booklet which was recommended by the Electoral Commission to enable the Police Commissioner elections to be conducted fairly. Instead it is determined misuse that £9 million to try to unfairly skew the results of the EU referendum. This is directly against the Electoral Commission’s advice. This is a striking illustration of the rottenness at the heart of the British Government and, as the old saying goes:- “A fish rots from its head”!”

The Director of the Campaign for an English Parliament has just issued the following press release:

Where is the English Minister fighting to protect English Steel workers’ jobs?

Tata Steel has confirmed it intends to sell its entire steel operations in the UK, putting the jobs of about 15,000 workers at risk. The UK Prime Minster, Cameron stated “We are not ruling anything out. I don’t believe nationalisation is the right answer, what we want to do is secure a long-term future for Port Talbot and for other steel plants in the UK.”

But who is speaking for England? It definitely isn’t Cameron as he mentioned Port Talbot, the Welsh Steel Works by name. We also have a Welsh government wanting to broker deals to save Port Talbot. The First Minster for Wales, Carwyn Jones has publicly stated the Welsh Government will support “any viable option” to secure the steel industry’s future in Wales.

So where is the English government fighting to protect the English Steel industry? The answer is that no one is specifically allocated to speak on behalf of English Steel workers. How much longer are the people of England going to be denied their rightful voice?

Eddie Bone, Campaign Director for the Campaign for an English Parliament stated

“English Steel workers are disadvantaged because they only have the UK government speaking for them and that government is made up of Welsh and Scottish MPs. The Welsh and Scottish steel workers have a clear advantage over English steel workers as they have First Ministers raising their concerns.The UK can no longer say it treats its citizens and workers equally, English workers urgently need an English First Minister”.

Share this:

Like this:

Winston McKenzie, the former UKIP candidate, who some say is the most influential Black English political figure today, has declared himself an English nationalist and joined the English Democrats, the only campaigning English nationalist party.

In our National Council meeting on Saturday, 12th December in Bradford, the English Democrats selected Winston McKenzie as our candidate for the London Mayoral election in May 2016.

It has been claimed for some time by Left-wing multiculturalists that Black people in England only identify with being British.

Winston McKenzie’s declaration of his English national identity is a big step away from the remnants of Britishness in England and towards almost everyone in England identifying themselves as being English rather than British, just as the equivalent already happens in Scotland and Wales.

Robin Tilbrook, the Chairman of the English Democrats in welcoming Winston McKenzie to the English Democrats and as its Mayoral candidate in London said:-

“I am delighted to announce that we have selected Winston McKenzie to be our candidate for the London Mayoral election. Winston is a great character and one of the most high profile Black English political figures of our day.”

“His journey from the old national identity of British to the re-emerging national identity of English is very welcome as it shows that English national identity is now catching up fast with Scottish and Welsh national identity.”

“I think we will look back on this day as a milestone in the re-emergence of England – and of what the English Democrats campaign for – England resuming its place amongst the Nation states of the earth and to be able to become a modern, democratic, prosperous, independent European Nation State respecting the uniqueness of all nations and in friendship with our European neighbours in a Europe of Nations and of Freedom!”

“Now this important decision has been taken we are making a call for support so that Winston’s campaign can reach as many London voters as possible.”

The English Democrats launched in 2002 and are the only campaigning English nationalist Party. We campaign for a referendum for Independence for England; for St George’s Day to be England’s National holiday; for Jerusalem to be England’s National Anthem; to leave the EU; for an end to mass immigration; for the Cross of St George to be flown on all public buildings in England; and we supported a YES vote for Scottish Independence.

The English Democrats are England’s answer to the Scottish National Party and to Plaid Cymru. The English Democrats’ greatest electoral successes to date include:- in the 2004 EU election we had 130,056 votes; winning the Directly Elected Executive Mayoralty of Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council in 2009 and also the 2012 mayoralty referendum; in the 2009 EU election we gained 279,801 votes after a total EU campaign spend of less than £25,000; we won the 2012 referendum which gave Salford City an Elected Mayor; in 2012 we also saved all our deposits in the Police Commissioner elections and came second in South Yorkshire; and in the 2014 EU election we had 126,024 votes for a total campaign spend of about £40,000 (giving the English Democrats by far the most cost efficient electoral result of any serious Party in the UK!). In the 2015 General Election we had the 8th largest contingent of candidates in England.

At last the people of England will get the opportunity to vote on whether to remain in the EU or leave in the 2016/17 referendum. Its been a long time coming and we can be grateful that we are able to put our case for withdrawal. There is no doubt that David Cameron will try to secure some cosmetic changes to a number of EU treaties or at least some changes that will enable him to convince the public that it is worth staying in; which he clearly wants to do. However whatever cosmetic changes he manages to make it is clear that the relentless march to ‘ever closer political union’ will continue to proceed. We need therefore to make a strong case for withdrawal and demonstrate that as a nation we are better out than in. We need to demonstrate the benefits to the people of England of complete withdrawal.

The ‘Yes Campaign’ have already started to promote a scaremongering scenario in which the consequences of leaving would be disastrous for our country. The following myths promoted by the Yes Campaign will no doubt be peddled constantly over the next year or so and therefore its important to address these myths and be able to refute them.

We are grateful to the ‘Better Off Out’ group for their work on these issues.

Myth 1

One common objection to leaving the EU is the argument that England would lose three million jobs. As Better Off points out England would not cease trading with the EU. It would maintain trade with the EU via a UK/Free Trade Agreement. It is a little known fact that the EU sells much more to us than we sell them. According to Better Off: ‘In 2009 there was a trade deficit of £34.9bn; in 2011 it was nearly £50bn. In a bizarre, hypothetical scenario if trade were literally stopped with the EU, the UK would lose 3 million jobs which are dependent on trade with the EU. The EU however would lose 4 million jobs, so it would be nonsensical for them not to trade with their biggest customer’

The Lisbon Treaty also states quite clearly that the EU must make trade agreements with countries which leave the EU!

Myth 2

It is often said by the ‘Yes’ campaign that England would be excluded from trade with the EU by tariff barriers. This is nonsense. The EU has up to 53 trade agreements with countries which overcome such tariffs and at present is in the process of negotiating a further 74.

Myth 3

Another objection to withdrawal is the argument that England cannot survive economically outside the EU in a world of trading blocs. This is a somewhat odd argument given that Japan, which is the worlds 3rd largest economy is not in any trading bloc! In any case the EU is not the economic area in which most of the worlds economic growth is taking place. According to Better Off Out; the ‘EU’s share of world GDP is forecast to decline to 15% in 2020, down from 26% in 1980’. It makes sense therefore to establish trading relationships with countries outside the EU such as the former Commonwealth countries.

As Better Offpoint out; ‘Norway and Switzerland are not in the EU, yet they export far more per capita to the EU than the UK does; this proves that the EU membership is not a prerequisite for a healthy trading relationship’ It must also be stated that England’s trading relationships are largely outside the EU with countries such as the USA and Switzerland.

Myth 4

We often hear that if we leave the EU England will have to pay £billions to the EU but have vey little influence whilst having to put in place all the EU’s regulations. The UK only has 8.4% voting power in the EU anyway which does not enable it to have any real influence. The UK has 73 MEPs which represents a small minority in the European Parliament with its 751 MEPs. Every time a new country joins the EU there is a further decline in the UK’s influence.

Myth 5

There have been repeated claims that the EU has had a positive impact on the British economy. In fact fishing, farming, postal services and manufacturing have already been devastated by the EU. There is no question that being a member of the EU costs billions of pounds and lost jobs. It has also been claimed that Britain would lose much needed foreign direct investment if we left the EU. However this is simply not true! Again from Better Off ; ‘In a 2010 survey on the UKs attractiveness to foreign investors, Ernst and Young

Found Britain remained the number one Foreign Direct Investment destination in Europe owing largely to the City of London and the UKs close corporate relationship with the US. EU membership was not mentioned at all in their table of key investment factors, which were: UK culture and values and the English language; telecommunications infrastructure; the quality of life; stable social environment, and transport and logistics infrastructure’ .

Myth 6

Many from the ‘Yes’ Remain in the EU Campaign argued that Britain will lose all influence in the world by being outside the EU. However Britain has an impressive ‘portfolio of power’ which includes membership of the G20 and G8 nations. We also have a seat on the Security Council and seats on the International Monetary Fund. As Better Off states; London is the financial capital of the world and Britain has the sixth largest economy. The UK is also in the top ten manufacturing nations in the world.’
In fact it could be argued that the EU is preventing the UK from increasing its influence!

Myth 7

The EU is moving towards the UK’s position on cutting regulation and bureaucracy

The Better Off response to this myth is as follows:

EU directives are subject to a ‘ratchet’ effect- i.e. once in place they are highly unlikely to be reformed or repealed.

Less than 10% of Britain’s GDP represents trade with the EU yet Brussels regulations afflict 100% of our economy.

80% of England’s GDP is generated within England so at least 80% need not be subject to EU laws.

In 2006 it was estimated that EU over regulation costs 600bn Euros across the EU each year.

In 2010, Open Europe estimated EU regulation had cost the UK £124 billion since 1998.

Whilst Red Tape savings are not direct cash savings, deregulation would result in a ‘bonfire of regulations’ that could fund either sizeable tax cuts or additional public spending.

Myth 8

The EU has brought peace to Europe

Even now, the EU is only 28 nations of the 47 European nations listed as national members of the Council of Europe.

The forerunner to the EU, the Common Market, didn’t come into existence until 1958, and then only with 6 nations, and yet there was no war between European countries from 1945 to 1956 (except the Hungarian revolution). Whilst peaceful international cooperation is welcomed at all levels, to say the EU is the sole guarantor of peace is an extreme exaggeration that is dishonest in its application. Examples of wars since include Serbia & Croatia, the Balkans and Yugoslavia.

It is NATO, founded in 1949 and dominated by the USA, and not the EU, that has really kept the peace in Europe, together with parliamentary democracy. Both of which are being undermined by the EU.

The former German President Herzog wrote a few years ago that ‘the question has to be raised of whether Germany can still unreservedly be called a parliamentary democracy’. This was owing to the number of German laws emanating from the EU- which he assessed at some 84% of laws.

The break up of Yugoslavia was a major test of the EU’s ability to keep the peace. It was EU interference that helped trigger a major civil war and its dithering contributed to deaths of some 100,000 people. It was only decisive action by the US/NATO forces that stopped the violence. Peace was established by the US-brokered Dayton Agreement.

Myth 9

It is often argued that the EU has been good for English Industry. However as many sources note including the Better Off group:

BRITISH INDUSTRIES SUCH AS FISHING, FARMING, POSTAL SERVICES AND MANUFACTURING HAVE ALREADY BEEN DEVASTATED BY BRITAIN’S MEMBERSHIP OF THE EU.

EU membership costs England billions of pounds (£55 million a day) and large numbers of lost jobs thanks to unnecessary and excessive red tape, substantial membership and aid contributions, inflated consumer prices and other associated costs.

Technically, Britain could leave the EU in a single day. Legislatively, this would be achieved simply by repealing the European Communities Act 1972 and its attendant Amendment Acts through a single clause Bill passing through Westminster.

If the English people voted to leave in an In/Out referendum or by voting in a party with EU withdrawal on its manifesto, Parliament ought to respect the Will of the People and there would be no justification for delay or obstruction in either House.

However, the process of setting up a replacement UK/EU Free Trade Agreement will take longer, though there would be no need for time-consuming negotiation of tariff reductions if the UK/EU Free Trade Agreement merely replicated existing EU trade arrangements.

In addition, even the Lisbon Treaty’s Article 50 enshrines the right of member states to leave the Union, albeit with strings attached. The same article requires the EU to seek a free trade deal with a member which leaves. Greenland established a precedent for a sovereign nation by leaving the EEC in 1985, and is prospering well outside of it. With Westminster still sovereign (for the moment), it is the British Parliament which will decide how and when the UK leaves the EU.

There is also the second option for England to leave the EU. If the United Kingdom is dissolved then we are automatically out.

The Reality:

The case for staying in the EU is weak and certainly does not serve the interests of the people of England. However the case for withdrawal is very strong indeed and does serve the interests of the people of England.